Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Guch, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried (Commissioner J. Harris arrived at 8:09 p.m.) Absent: None Chairman Peterson welcomed new Commissioner Susan Guch. Minutes The following change was made to the minutes of November 13, 1985: For clarification, the last sentence in the second paragraph on page 8 should read: "Discussion followed on the 10 ft. retaining wall which has been constructed and Staff stated that they do not believe the plans show the wall at that height." Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November 13, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried ~hanim~n~fy', ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR la. SDR-1610 - Brian Kelly and Barbara Harris, Request for Tentative lb. V-712 - Building Site Approval for one lot and Variance and lc. A-1134 - Design Review Approvals to permit construction of a new, one-story, single family residence with a 10 ft. rear yard setback where a minimum 25 ft. is required (existing home to be demolished) at 14101 Lomo Rio Drive, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district; continued from November 13, 1985 2. A-1149 - Barry and Patricia Ford, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, one-story single family residence at 13838 Saratoga Avenue, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district 3. A-1150 - John McNulty, Request for Design Review Approval for first floor additions to an existing one-story resi- dence which, with the additions, will exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. standard for gross floor area at 15435 Pepper Lane, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district 4. SDR-1470 - George and Raisa Kocher (Gabler), Request for One- Year Extension to Tentative Building Site Approval for two (2) lots between Park Drive and Piedmont Road, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district 5. UP-531 - Martin Oudewaal, Request for a One-Year Extension of the Use Permit Approval to allow three (3) condomini- um units at 14629 Big Basin Way, in the C-V zoning district Items #1, #2, #3 and #4 were pulled from the Public Hearings Consent Calendar for discussion. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance, #5, listed above. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - 12/11/85 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) Discussion followed on Item #1, SDR-1610, V-712 and A-1134, Brian Kelly and Barbara Harris. Commissioners B. Harris and Guch abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Brian Kelly, the applicant, stated that he had asked that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar to give specific consideration to the Staff recommendation of a 15 ft. rear yard setback. He stated that they had proceeded with the current design after the previous meeting with the Planning Commission and the neighbors, and they feel that they cannot maintain a 15 ft. rear yard setback with that design and asked that it be changed to 10 ft. He noted the strange configuration of the rear yard property line, stating that this essentially could be considered a side yard. He submitted drawings showing how the 15 ft. setback would affect the house as originally drawn and sumitted. He clarified that this involves the corner of the dining room and a very small corner of the living room. Robert Wiseman, 14147 Squirrel Hollow, stated that he feels that the Planning Department has been very reasonable in allowing a 15 ft. setback as proposed, as opposed to 25 ft. He indicated that he feels that it should be considered a rear yard. He commented that this property is approximately 3 or 4. feet higher than his property and it will significantly infringe on his privacy. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that it is a very small diagonal portion of the dining room and the living room. He added that he feels even if the setback were 25 ft. in that portion, it would not visibly change the impact of the house. He commented that a 15 ft. setback may cause an entire redesign of the home and cause it to be second-story. He noted that the home has been drastically reduced in height and size. Commissioner Pines concurred, adding that the way the windows are situated in both rooms, whether it is 10 ft. or 15 ft. really would not affect the visual impact on neighbors, because the windows are set to look straight back. Commissioner Burger concurred. Commissioner Burger moved to approve V-712, per the Staff Report dated November 26, 1985, changing Condition #2 to read a minimum rear yard setback of 10 ft. shall be maintained. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioners Guch and B. Harris abstaining. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR-1610, per the Staff Report dated November 26, 1985. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioners Guch and B. Harris abstaining. Commissioner BUrger moved to approve A-1134, per the Staff Report dated November 26, 1985. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioners Guch and B. Harris abstaining. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the record should reflect that the findings in the Staff Report are equally applicable to a 10 ft. setback. The appeal period was noted. Discussion followed on Item #2, A-1149, Barry and Patricia Ford. Bill Ey, planner for the applicants, stated that they would like to have the house accepted at the design square footage of 6141.5 sq. ft. He indicated that the square footage includes an atrium and commented that the actual living area of the home is only 4300 sq. ft. He noted that the lot is one acre. He stated that they would be happy to add trees where necessary for screening. Mr. Ey addressed the findings. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - 12/11/85 A-1149 Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner Siegfried stated that he does not have a problem with this house, pointing out that it is only 18 ft. high; it has an oversized garage with a big shop. He added that it is a big lot. Commissioner Burger gave an on-site visit report, stating that the lot is very secluded and the home is not visible from the street. She commented that it is well screened from the neighbors and the street by the trees and vegetation. She added that the applicant has assured her that the oak tree which had been questioned is 10 ft. away from the foundation. Commissioner Peterson agreed with Commissioners Siegfried and Burger, but stated that he cannot support this size house. He explained that he feels that to put it in the R-1-20,000 district, where the houses around it are maximum 4,000 sq. ft., would set a precedent. Discussion followed on the atrium, which is counted space. Commissioner Siegfried commented that without the atrium the house is reduced to 5600 sq. ft., and since it will be on a lot which is 31,000 sq. ft., excluding the easement, he does not feel this is a significant problem. Commissioner Pines agreed, stating that he feels the ordinance is to protect the visibility and the views from the surrounding property, and the house is set so far back from 'the street and screened so well, that he does not think that issue even arises. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-1149, changing Condition #2 to read 6142 sq. ft. Staff asked that Condition #3 be deleted, since it is not applicable. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. The appeal period was noted. Discussion followed on Item #3, A-1150, John McNulty. Michael Layne, representing the applicant,gave a presentation on the project. He discussed the design, explaining that in the process of modifying the existing house to the design requirements of the client, he connected both wings by enclosing the porch with a series of French doors. He stated that, in doing so, he accumulated a great deal of square footage in the calculations of the house, approximately 460 sq. ft. He indicated that the house is now over the 6200 sq. ft. standard. He commented that it is quite easy to reduce about 230 sq. ft. from the house; however, it would still be over the 6200 sq. ft. He discussed the possible changes to the house to reduce the square footage. He stated that they preferred to eliminate the access off of Pepper Lane and maintain the access off of Hume Drive. Discussion followed on the access. Chairman Peterson noted a letter from a neighbor regarding the access. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not see any reason to differ from the Staff Report; he thinks the house ought to be reduced and he does not see any reason to have two accesses. Commissioner Burger agreed, stating that she had been on the site and believes that the appropriate access to the home comes off of Pepper Lane. Commissioner Pines concurred with eliminating the access off of Hume and reducing the square footage. After discussion there was consensus to reduce the square footage with access from Pepper Lane. Mr. Layne indicated that he would prefer to have the Commission act on the application this evening. He stated that he would prefer to have some leeway in the square footage, possibly 6300 - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - 12/11/85 A-1150 or 6400 sq. ft. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1150 per the Staff Report dated November 27, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Item #4, SDR-1470, George and Raisa Kocher (Gabler). Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that the site is a natural habitat for many animals and birds an also contains many old oak trees. He referenced the report from the City Geologist regarding the topography of the site. He stated that he does not think this is a suitable site and should have not been approved without further study having been carried out. He commented that his house is situated a little further back from the edge of this slope on the Kocher property. He explained that the subsoil is predominantly clay; it retains water and it is very unstable. He commented that if contouring of this hillside has to take place it could destabilize the entire hillside, including his house° He added that, because of the fact that the vegetation on this hillside is containing erosion, if building were done this would have to be denuded. In the event of an extremely wet weather, a mudslide could block Wild Cat Creek, which is just on the lower edge of where this building site would have to be. He indicated that this could cause upstream flooding, which happened a few years ago, and it was very extensive at the time. Dr. Stutzman stated that he feels before any other permit is granted that an Environmental Impact Study should be done and some very extensive engineering work should be carried out. He discussed the various easements involved which, if deducted, would bring the lot size down to approximately 18,100 sq. ft. Harold Logges discussed a meeting about three years ago of the General Plan Committee, at which time a number of residents from this immediate area were present. He indicated that there was an unanimous opinion among them that the one acre zoning should be minimal. He commented that this project is contrary to the professed need in Saratoga to maintains its rural atmosphere. He also noted the landslide and flooding hazards stated by Dr. Stutzman. Larry Tyler, representing the applicants, was present to answer questions. Laurie Wortley, 19897 Park Drive, stated that she would like a denial of the request for extension. She commented that she feels that the lots in that area of 20,000 sq. ft. are too small. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson commented that the application is for a one-year extension of an approved subdivision. Staff clarified that the engineering study recommended by the City Geologist will be done at the time that the applicant moves to finalize the subdivision and proposes to build on the site. They commented that it will be done and it will be reviewed by the City Geologist at that time for adequacy, and if additional work is needed, that will be accomplished. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the one-year extension for SDR- 1470. He noted that in his years on the Commission an extension has been treated as a ministerial act. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 4 - / Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - 12/11/85 6. A-1016 - McBain and Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family resi- dence with gross floor area which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft., on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 5, Tract 6628, Tollgate/ Road; continued from 10/23/85 (to be continued to 1/8/86) · It was directed that this matter be continued to January 8, 1986. / 7. A-1144 - Ken Chan, Request for De~.~gn Review Approval for a new, two-story, single ~.amily residence on a hill- side lot at Lot 13, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district; continued from 10/23/85 (to be continued to 1/~2/86) / It was directed that this matter be..'continued to January 22, 1986. / 8a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1612 - Morrison and Fox 8b. SDR-1612 - Morrison and Fox/Request for Tentative Building 8c. A-1136 - Site Approval an8 Design Review Approval for the construction of~12 apartment units at 14234 Sara- toga-SunnyvaleYRoad, in the RM-3000 zoning dis-. trict; continued from 11/13/85 (to be continued to 1/8/86 / It was directed that this matter be continued to January 22, 1986. 9. A-1133 - Philip and Patricia Sondeno, Request for Design Review ~pproval to construct a two-story, single family/'residence which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. design review floor area standard at 21412 Conti- nentai Circle (Tract 6528, Lot 34), in the NHR zoning district; continued from 11/13/85 Commissioner Guch abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff explained the application, indicating that the applicant has made several minor adjustments to the structure; however, the design is essentially/the same with the same perception of bulk. They stated that they continue to recommend denial° / The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Sondeno' addressed the Commission, stated that they have lowered the residence/i-1/2 ft. in the building itself, plus lowering the roof pitch from a 6~12 to a 5/12, which lowered the complete building. He indicated that they are now at 27.25 ft. Discussion followed on the consensus at the study session, and it was determined that the Commission had felt the house was too massive and bulky. Mr. Sondeno commented that it was his recollection that the Commission had requested that he reduce the height to 27-28 ft., plus ha~ing a retaining wall in the rear with a lot of trees and shrubbery. He stated that if they lowered the house any more they would take away from the view in the front of the house. 'Commissioner J. Harris reiterated what she had said at the previous meetings, that she is concerned with the western elevation, since it looks like three stories. She commented that she does not think that the landscaping that is proposed is going to mitigate that enough. She added that she feels that the house is too bulky and is not a good design for such a steep site. Commissioner Burger stated that the Commission had expressed concern about the height of the house and did mention reducing the height; however, she thinks that was also coupled with the idea that the Commission would like to see it stepped down. She added that that was a - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - 12/11/85 A-1133 reflection on the major concern which was the appearance of three stories as you view it towards the east. She commented that she does not believe that has been mitigated sufficiently. Commissioner Pines commented that the addition of a deck on the western elevation on the upper story even exaggerates the problem of reading three stories, because there are three level of decks. He stated that he appreciates the reduction of the height as far as the front of the house is concerned, but he does not think it affects the west elevation, which is the one with which the Commission had the most concern. Mr. Sondeno indicated that they could delete the deck on the upper level. Commissioner Burger commented that the applicant has made a few minor changes. However, she does not feel that it is getting to the point of what the Commission was requesting, and she feels that the changes are basically cosmetic. There was a consensus to that effect. Mr. Sondeno commented that he does not know what can be done with that steep of a lot, and Chairman Peterson suggested stepping it down. Mr. Sondeno stated that if he stepped it down he would lose the view out the front. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger stated that she feels that the design of the home is lovely; however, she cannot see it on that steep of slope. She commented that the perception of the height and the bulk of the home needs to be reduced, and for that reason she cannot support the application. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny A-1133, per the Staff Report. Commisioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 6-0, with Commissioner Guch abstaining. The appeal period was noted. 10a. Negative Declaration - Kemp Carter - SM-22 10b. V-715 - Kemp Carter, Request for Variance Approval for 10c. SM-22 - an existing 10 ft. high handball wall with 3 ft. high basketball backboard extension (total 13 ft. height) located within the required side yard where 6 ft. is the maximum wall height allowed, and to permit a new recreational court with 10 ft. high fencing with no side yard setback where 20 ft. minimum setback is required, and Site Modi- fication Approval for the recreational court and relocated volleyball court to be on a slope which exceeds 10%, at 19306 Pinnacle Court, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from 11/13/85 Commissioner Guch abstained on the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff gave the history of the application and indicated that it has been modified and the applicant is asking for withdrawal of the variance. They indicated that they are recommending approval of the Site Modification for the volleyball court and denial of the Site Modification for the sport court, and recommend that the area be restored to its prior condition. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Mike Dillon gave the history of the project and addressed the current application. He indicated that they are prepared to move the 10 ft. wall back to the setback. Mr. Carter discussed the project and the grading. He indicated that they are splitting the two areas off to clear up the issue and make the - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - 12/11/85 SM-22 variance a moot point. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels what the Staff is saying is that if the volleyball area is approved, it should be done on the condition that the sport court area be restored. He commented that if Mr. Carter really wants to do something in the sport~ court area, he feels he is making a mistake to sever the two. Staff clarified that they are recommending approval of the site modification for the volleyball area and denial of the site modification for the sport court area. Mr. Carter stated that they are asking approval for the sport court area as it exists, not for a sport court. The drainage system on the site was addressed. Staff commented that if the Commission approves the site modification for the sport court area there will a slope less than 10%; therefore, a variance would not be needed. However, a use permit would be required for the setbacks. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he is still concerned that there may not be a clear understanding of what is before the Commission. He pointed out that if the Commission follows the Staff recommendation, it would mean restoration of the sport court area. He added that he is prepared to move forward on that basis, but he is not sure that is what the applicant wants. Commissioner Peterson stated that he feels if the Commission grants the site modification for the existing sport court area, in fact they are approving a sport court, and that ought to be a separate issue. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she feels that if the Commission requires every other citizen to come in for a variance when they have a 11% slope, this situation should be treated no differently. Mr. Carter stated that he could live with a variance; he could not live with restoring the area. He explained that in the previous application in 1984 there was approval requiring a variance at a later date. He asked for the same for the current situation. He indicated that he feels he will make a decision on the sport court area by the end of January. After discussion there was a consensus to continue the site modification on the sport court area for 90 days, to allow the applicant to make a decision as to what he wants to do in this area. The applicant was agreeable to this. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the site modification for the volleyball area of SM-22, and continue the sport court portion and the variance to March 12, 1986. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 6-0, with Commissioner Guch dissenting. 11. C-229 - City of Saratoga, Consider the adoption of new Zoning Ordinance constituting Chapter 15 of pro- posed City Code; continued from 11/13/85 The City Attorney described the changes made from the last study session. He discussed the findings necessary for a height over the new suggested limitation of 26 feet. The Saratoga News representative was asked to headline the 26 ft. limitation being recommended in the revision to the Zoning Ordinance, to give notice to developers and citizens. Commissioner Peterson addressed fencing, suggesting that 6" be allowed for a crown on the pilasters. Discussion followed on the width and spacing of the pilasters. The City Attorney stated that fencing is something that will be addressed at a later date. He discussed the timeframe for the revisions to the City Code. Discussion followed on parking for medical clinics, and it was determined that they should be added under the medical office category. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - 12/11/85 C-229 The public hearing was opened at 9:35 pom. Carl Franklin discussed the height limitation relative to limiting the design. He stated that there may be a lot of requests for variances. Chairman Peterson explained that there will be a provision and a vehicle to allow over that limitation, with certain findings. Tim Nobriga, Vickery Avenue, explained that he had requested a permit for another horse, since he lives in a R-1-40,000 district which is non- equestrian. He referenced his letter, asking that the ordinance be changed so that he could request a use permit or variance for an additional horse. It was determined that this issue would be discussed at a future study session. Mike Annatulah, 14321 Evans Lane, inquired about an ordinance change regarding community stables. The City Attorney stated that they have defined boarding stables and established them as a conditional use, which is a clarification of what.previously was in the ordinance. He indicated that they have informed Mr. Annatulah's neighbors that they need a use permit. Michael Layne, designer, stated that he would like to be included in study sessions regarding (1) consideration of encouragement, rather than the discouragement, to an increase in garage size and (2) fences and the size of the pilasters. He suggested that they be done on a brick module unit, approximately 2 ft. square or 24", approximately 8 ft. apart. He suggested that a slightly higher pilaster be considered if necessary,. and that some sort of lighting be allowed on top of the pilasters. The findings necessary for an exception to the 26 ft. limitation were described to Mr. Layne. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to recommend approval of C-229, as modified, to the City Council. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Break: 9:50 - 10:05 p.m. 12. SDR-1454 - John DiManto, Request for a One-Year Extension and modification of Condition V-G. (relating to water requirements for fire protection) to Tentative Sub- division Map Approval for 5 lots between Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads, in the R-1-40,000 and HCRD zon- ing districts Staff explained the application, recommending approval of the one-year extension and denial of the modification of the condition because of the precedent it would set. Commisisoner Pines stated that it is his understanding that a sprinkler system has been preferred in many cases by Fire Departments. He commented that it seems that it might be a safer situation if there were more homes having sprinkler systems and were tied into the Early Warning System, and maybe add an additional 100 ft. to a hydrant. Staff stated that if the Commission feels that way he would suggest that this application be set aside and proceed to explore that with the Fire Districts. They indicated that the previous requests for the waiver of the 1,000 g.p.m. water flow requirement have not been approved by either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Chairman Peterson pointed out that there are two separate issues here; one is the sprinkler system in a house. He commented that in this case - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - 12/11/85 SDR-1454 the applicant is suggesting that, in order to keep the house higher up the hill and something like 750 ft. away from the hydrant, rather than 500 ft., they build a 15,000 gallon tank and put in a separate system. He stated that he feels that is a separate issue. He added that he thinks that would be opening up a lot of opportunity up in the hills in the subdivisions left to set a precedent, where they continue to do that and they do not have to bring in new water systems and the systems that are up to 1,000 g.p.m. The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Bill Heiss,the civil engineer for the applicant, indicated that they do have 1,000 g.p.m. on the site. He stated that basically the water system is now paid for and will be constructed in the spring for this subdivision, and there will be 1,000 g.p.m. to the area. He described the subject site and stated that they were asking for relief for the distance from a hydrant that delivers 1,000 g.p.m. He commented that they have been working with the Fire District who have indicated that a sprinkler system would be setting a good precedent. He addressed the proposed sprinkler system, stating that the Fire District has indicated that they would put this on their certification program that they use for commercial properties that are sprinkled. After discussion it was the consensus that input from the Fire District should be obtained, and the modification of the condition continued until after further review. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved for the extension of SDR-1454, and continued the modification of the condition to February 12, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which wascarried unanimously 7-0. It was noted that the matter of the proper distance would be agendized for a study session. 13a. Negative Declaration - UP-548 Mod. - K. D. Daniel 13b. UP-548 - Request for Modification to a Use Permit to allow an Mod. accessory structure located within 28' of the rear property line and 5' of the side property line where respectively 30' and 10' are required, and to allow a revised parking'layout from that previously approved at 12333 Saratoga-Sunnyvale road, in the C-V zoning district Staff described the proposal, recommending approval of the use permit for the setback and denial of the revised parking layout. They discussed the accesses to and from the property along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in the area of Public Storage. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report. She discussed the parking and described the structure, indicating that it was not visible.' from the street and there appears to be...no. impact.' The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. / / concur Edwin O'Farriell, representing the applicant, stated that they / with Staff's recommendation on the accessory building. He indicated that when they first came in with the original use permit they wer~ told to work with Public Storage in creating a common driveway that,/would serve both properties. He commented that that common driveway.~has now become an entrance only. He stated that if they were to fol~low the recommendations of Staff to not have a second access, they woul/d have to / come across their property and the Public Storage property before they could exit onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. / / Staff explained that the condition was for Public Storage/to work with / / - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - 12/11/85 UP-548 the Daniel property to create a common use driveway. If in fact there has been an entrance only sign installed they feel it is contrary to the Commission's interest and conditioning. Discussion followed on the circulation and access in that area. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus to keep the parking plan as previously approved. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP-548 Mod. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the accessory structure for UP-548 Mod. and deny the revised parking layout, per the Staff Report dated December 3, 1985. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. The appeal period was noted. Staff indicated that they would discuss the entrance sign with Public Storage. 14a. A-1151 - Carl Franklin, Request for Design Review Approval 14b. V-719 - for a new, one-story residence and Variance Approval to maintain a one (1) foot side yard setback where 10 ft. is required, and modification of the Building Site Approval final map (SDR-1473) to allow the ex- isting accessory structure to remain at 20680 Marion Road, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district The project was described by Staff. They indicated that they were unable to make the findings for the variance and recommend denial. The commented that they feel there are alternatives available or the applicant could pursue the elimination of the easement along the northerly property line; thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Staff stated that they recommended approval of the design review with conditions and recommendation to the City Council of the modification of the final map. They noted the correspondence received on the application. The public hearing was opened at 10:52 p.m. Carl Franklin, the applicant, referenced the approval given on the home in 1983, stating that the approval was almost identically the same design layout of the existing structure. He stated that inadvertently they had slid the structure 15 ft. Mr. Franklin addressed the easement on the site, indicating that there is an adjacent neighbor who shares the easement. He commented that he had been unable to contact the neighbor, since he is out of the country. The City Attorney clarified that if there is an offer of dedication as well as a private easement, it would require an abandonment of both of the easements by the private parties and City Council action to abandon the offer of dedication. He added that the offer would remain outstanding indefinitely until it is either accepted or abandoned. Staff noted that there is no dedication on this map. Bill Heiss discussed the easement and noted that the old offer of dedication was not preserved on the new map. The City Attorney stated that if there was a resubdivision old piece of property and the dedication was not preserved on the new map, then it would have been abandoned by reason of the new subdivision, and no action by the City would be needed. He stated that, regarding the easement, he thinks this is a title matter and it can be worked out with the applicant, depending on what the Commission wishes to do otherwise. Staff commented that the previous plan by Mr. Zambetti did not show the easement. The abandonment of the easement was addresed. Franklin indicated that he would like to eliminate the easement and create a private driveway for both parties. Discussion followed on the setbacks, and it was noted by Commissioner Siegfried that he feels that the findings for the variancecould be made on the basis that a better setback would develop - 10 - Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - 12/11/85 A-115! and V-719 \ if the. easement is not eliminated. He added that the easement is a driveway for the two sites and does not serve anything, and he noted the topography of the site. \ Commissidner Burger gave a Land USe Committee report, stating that the applicant\~as indicated that the garage and the kitchen will be removed from the accessory structure, since he would like to use it as storage. She added'that it will be behind the main house and will not be visible from the cul~de-sac. After furthe~ discussion of the easement there was a consensus to continue this.matter for 30 days in order to allow the applicant to contact the ~g~hbOr.~6'see if the easement can be abandoned. Chairman Peterson stated ~hat if the applicant is unable to contact the owner, he feels that there is a consensus among the Commission to grant the variance. It was determined that Condition #3 relative to the fire retardant roof and the Early Warning System would be deleted, since it is not applicable to this site. Condition #6 was amended to read "issuance of certificate of occupancy", instead of "issuance of building permit". Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was directed that the application be continued to January 22, 1986. 15a. E-2-85 - Murray Dey, et al, Consider a Draft EIR (Gypsy Hill 15b. SDR-1595 - Farm Residential Subdivision) and Tentative Subdivi- sion Approval for a 23-1ot subdivision on a 27.85 acre site located at the southwest corner of Sobey Rd. and Chester Ave., in the R-1-40,000 zoning dis- trict Staff commented that the EIR is before the Planning Commission tonight. They indicated that the public hearing should be opened and public testimony taken. They stated that the consultant is present and will bring comments back at the next meeting, at which time the EIR should be certified. They commented that the hearing on the subdivision will be continued to the next meeting. The public hearing was opened at 11:15 p.m. Russell Leavitt, from Earth Metrics, the EIR consultant, discussed the issues addressed in the Draft EIR. He noted that three letters have been received on the EIR, and they will prepare written responses to these letters and include them in the Final EIR. Commissioner J. Harris asked that the term "perched ground water" be defined and asked where it is located. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, and Mr. Leavitt explained the term and addressed the location. Commissioner J. Harris noted that on page 3.6-2 it states that the recommended depth of the subdrain is at least 5 feet below natural ground surface, and she questioned whether that would be appropriate in view of the fact that there is ground water at 4.2 ft. She also asked, relative to page 2-9 regarding open space easement, how wide such an easement should be. Mr. Leavitt stated that 5 feet would be deep enough to reach the ground water and draw it up to be drained away. He commented that, in terms of the riparian corridor, the Fish and Game Department have since responded to the EIR and stated that they consider this to be a significant riparian area and recommend a buffer of 50 feet. Commissioner J. Harris stated that on page 3.6-3, regarding underground water, she would like clarification of what is meant by the eastern portion of this site, i.e. which particular home sites or lot numbers. She also asked if Sobey Creek is a creek, and Mr. Levitt stated that, according to the Fish & Game, it is a creek. - 11 - Planning Commission Page 12 Minutes - 12/11/85 E-2-85 and SD-1595 Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, described the site and the details of the currently proposed subdivision. Mr. Leavitt referred to Appendix pg. C-2 of the Draft EIR, the letter from the City Geologist, and commented that there it does state that it appears that the surface drainage is very poor in the northeastern portion of the properties, i.e. on lots 1 through 5 and perhaps lot 23, essentially the lots that are adjacent to the major part of Sobey Creek. He indicated that the Final EIR will include the revised plans for the subdivision and a brief comparison'of those plans to that project which was analyzed in the Draft EIR. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing on the Draft EIR. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was directed that this matter will be continued to the meeting of January 8, 1986. 16a. Negative Declaration - UP-595 - George and Marie Kolotouros 16b. UP-595 - Request for Use Permit Approval to allow a noncon- forming truck/agricultural use to continue opera- tion at 20210 Prospect Rd., in the R-1-10,000 zoning district Staff described the application, recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 11:35 p.m. George Kolotouros, the applicant, described his operation. He expressed his willingness to cooperate with the Commission so that he can continue his business which he does for a living. He indicated that his neighbors were at the meeting in support of the application. Mrs. Kolotouros submitted signatures from the neighbors in support and urged approval of the use permit. Gus Stratagopulas, 20197 Knollwood Drive, spoke in support of the application. He indicated that he had never had a problem with traffic in that area or any environmental problems. He stated that he feels that denial of the use permit would cause loss of livelihood for the applicant and his family. Mrs. Eggleston, Marilla Drive, spoke in support of the application, stating that there have been no problems. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was noted that there is a letter in the file, indicating that the previous owner had trucks. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that all of the equipment is well hidden; the trucks are parked as close to Prospect as possible; they do not impact the front entrance to this property at all; it is a clean, well kept lot. She commented that it is bordered by the proposed 85 corridor, the equipment yard for the nursery and Prospect Avenue. She indicated that the applicant has put to rest her concern about a continuing use. Discussion followed on Condition #2 of the Staff Report, which requires that the operation shall be phased out, with one truck removed from the site, over a 3 year period. Commissioner Burger stated that she wonders why, if the Commission were so inclined to grant the use permit, would it be conditioned to be phased out. She commented that that does not seem logical. Commissioner Siegfried agreed, suggesting that it be approved for a set period of time, at which time the applicant will be required to come - 12 - .Planning Commission Page 13 Minutes- 12/11/85 back and the situation reviewed. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP- 595. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve UP-595, per the conditions of the Staff Report, changing Condition #2 to read that the use permit will be valid for a period of 3 years. She made the findings based on the comments made during the discussion. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 17. V-716 - William and Mary Benson, Request for Variance Approv- al to allow an existing stucco fence which in certain sections exceeds the maximum 6 ft. height restric- tions and to allow existing pilasters which also exceed 6 ft. in height at 20433 Montalvo Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Commissioner Pines abstained from the discussion and voting on the application. Staff explained the application, recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 11:55 p.m. William Benson, the applicant, discussed the fence and panels. He indicated that approximately 4 of the panels exceed the 6 ft. limitation. He explained that the property next door is much higher, and the fence is not even 6 ft. in many cases. Paul Hume explained that he had recently purchased the Camargo Layne property next door and has a common fence with Mr. Benson. He spoke in support of the fence, for privacy and security purposes, and stated that the style of the fence had attracted him to the property. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that he had made an on-site visit and described the fence. He commented that only about 5% or 6% of the fence is over 6 ft. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she does not feel there should be that much fencing in that type of area. However, since it is there she would rather see fencing of a rather straight line than the jigsaw effect that would occur in strictly applying the ordinance. Discussion followed on the measurement and appearance of the fence on both sides. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to verify the measurement. Chairman Peterson suggested that the matter be continued to allow the Commissioners to make an on-site visit. There was a consensus that the pillars provide relief, and the ordinance should be changed relative to that issue. Mrs. Marino addressed the Commission, in opposition to the fence. She indicated that she had been told that Mr. Hume is probably going to build a wall around his house. She asked that the building inspectors watch the design of the wall so that it is not over the height limitation. It was directed that this matter be continued to January 8, 1986. 18a. Negative Declaration - V-717 - Carol Mauldin 18b. V-717 - Carol Mauldin, Request for Variance Approval for two, substandard width (9' where 9.5' is required) parking spaces where a minimum of four parking spaces are required for a proposed office conversion of an exist- ing residential structure at 14650 Sixth Street, in the'C~V zoning district (to be continued to 1/22/86) It was directed that this matter be continued to January 22, 1986. - 13 - Planning Commission Page 14 Minutes - 12/11/85 MISCELLANEOUS 19a. SC-1 - Remington Group (Inn at Saratoga), 20465 Fourth Street, 19b. EP-25 - Request for approval of a freestanding sign and an en- croachment permit to locate the sign on City property The application was described by Staff. They reported that the applicant has submitted new drawings since the Staff Report was written, which mitigate the concerns regarding the sign. The Director of Community Development indicated that he did not have the opportunity for input to Staff during the writing of the report, and does not share totally their concerns relative to the encroachment permit. He stated that he is not convinced that people seeing the sign would be turned away from the parking lot on the premise that the parking was exclusively for the Inn. Relative to the liability, he stated that he believes that there is potential for writing a hold harmless agreement. The City Attorney stated that if the Commission is inclined to approve the encroachment permit he recommended that there be some kind of liability policy and some arrangement for payment of rent. Warren Heid, the architect, addressed the revised sign and discussed the encroachment permit. Commissioner Peterson commented that he feels that the Inn is well hidden and he will support the application, feeling that they need some identity. Commissioner Burger suggested considering a small directional sign to the parking district. Commissioner Guch expressed concern about the fact that she feels the people will view the parking district parking as Inn parking° Discussion followed on the conditions of approval. Commissioner Burger moved to approve EP-25, per the conditions in the Staff Report, amending Condition #4 to require that the applicant maintain the landscaping, and changing Condition #2 to read "As part of the owners' basic liability coverage of the hotel, the City shall be included relative to the sign aspect". It was noted that this would be in addition to the indemnity agreement. Commissioner Siegf.ried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SC-1, per the Staff Report, removing condition #2. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 20. A-984 - John Greenleaf, 12391 Farr Ranch Road, Request for reconsideration of condition of approval Staff explained the request, stating that because the applicant's property is higher, the effect of the screening on the applicant's property will mitigate the privacy impacts much more efficiently, and they recommend denial of the request. Mr. Greenleaf, the applicant, discussed the approved landscaping plan and the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the plantings. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she feels something more substantial than low growing evergreens is needed up against the house. Commissioner Burger commented that she does not feel there is much of anything that can be done between these two houses to mitigate a privacy impact unless you bring in huge pine trees. Commissioner Guch agreed. Commissioner Pines moved to waive Condition #2. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. 21. LL #2 - Marshall Hall, 19525 Glen Una Drive, Request for reconsideration of condition of approval - 14 - Planning Commissio Page 15 Minutes - 12/11/85 " " LL #2 Staff explained the request. Bob Saxe, representing the applicant, addressed the request and referenced the letter he had submitted. After discussion there was a consensus that this matter be continued, to allow time for review and Staff to write a report, since there was no report in the packet. It was directed that this matter be continued to the Regular Adjourned Meeting on December 17, 1985. CO)~UNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Miles Rankin, regarding parking on Big Basin Way. Referred to City Council. Oral by Commission and Staff 1. A brief report on the City Council meeting held on December 4, 1985 was given by Commissioner Burger. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner J. Harris moved to adjourn to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on December 17, 1985. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m. Secretary RSS:cd - 15 -